Oh. Hmmmm. Not what we expected. A...a very subtle reversal of Cory's charges. [Seeming to imply that Cory may send Kevin Valentine's cards]. Diebert, Diebert. Can you for once not be so damned DUTCH?!?_________________________________________________

All I can think to say is that I just read that part about Mother and Whore and he did NOT say that the mother is 'mean, withholding, paranoid, and essentially heartless'. But that her loving energy is exclusive and directed toward the center, her family.

Talking Ass wrote: If a man is to be 'liberated' of the very matrix that has given rise to him [this is what y'all mean by 'enlightenment' I take it], one needs a kind of structure to hang that notion on. Liberated from what to do just exactly what? You would say 'Realize the Infinite' and your explication is completely and absolutely rational. It is like revealing a complicated equation or offering an explanation of a complex math problem. This is the part I have never quite understood, simply because it seems incomplete to me.

If 'enlightenment' exists as a possibility for a human being, is this 'enlightenment' a choice? I mean, is it just as random a choice as any other ['empty and meaningless'] choice? How did this 'enlightenment' come into existence?

You're still misunderstanding the matter on various levels. If you think of enlightenment as an intellectual construct of some kind (" a complicated equation or offering an explanation of a complex math problem"), or as a particular state to be reached ("How did this 'enlightenment' come into existence?"), then you are misguided. Enlightenment is precisely a liberation from all intellectual constructs, states of being and experiences.

There is nothing that comes into being with enlightenment. Rather, it is a realization of what is already here. We are already free and liberated, but people cannot see it because they allow their minds to remain captive to their attachments and desires.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Masculinization occurs in two dimensions; it occurs in a purely intellectual sphere, blessing the creature with powers in abstraction, language, and analysis.

However, it also occurs in an endocrinlogical sense, blessing the creature with powers in creativity, love, youthfulness, and social-courage. If you were masculinized in the heart, you manifest as a John Lennon, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, James Dean, Marlon Brando, or Bob Dylan type. These types of men are receptive to beauty in a super human sense, and with that, comes great social courage, a love for humanity that less masculinized men could not relate to.

I disagree with that. The people you mention were charismatic and talented, but they weren't really in control of their lives - which is surely a bare minimum requirement for masculine consciousness. They were unbalanced by their own talent; they didn't have a large enough soul to deal with it and so most of them self-destructed. They were also selfish, narcissistic and immature on so many different levels.

But they were the types of blokes who appealed to the common man (enigmatic personalities with lots of power, money and chicks), so that is perhaps what you mean by a "big heart". Or perhaps they just tickle the "fan" inside you.

However, it often happens that men of such hearts have no mind. For instance, the intellectual confusion of John Lennon, or artist in general. With a blessing comes a curse.

Once you start divorcing masculinity from the mind, you've lost me.

This explains the perplexing drama of QRS when Kevin Solway went travelling. Dan Rowden and DQ behaved like possessive, jealous women. It was obvious to everyone watching.

To be fair, I was the one who instigated it. Dan had little to do with it. But it had nothing to do with Kevin's travelling or a possessive jealousy. It was far more to do with the direction that Kevin's life had been taking for a few years leading up to that point, a direction that had been concerning me. I wanted to shock him out of it.

It was the first and only time that I attacked him like that, even though he has done lots of travelling before and since.

Paired with this appearance, Solway himself has a greater respect and love for folk music. Whether it's Bob Dylan, local Australian folk, or classical, the man just seems more in-tune with what, in my estimation, is a more masculine heart. There is no angry, aggressive metal to be found in his personality, and my guess is he probably has no connection to much of the pretentious theoretical indulgences of Jazz

Musical taste is largely subjective, and you can depict various kinds of music in different ways, depending on your tastes and biases. For example, one could just as easily say: "Aggressive metal and theoretical jazz display passion, idealism and a highly-structured mentality, whereas Dylan and folk music represent the lifeless stagnation of the ordinary peasant".

DQ is the next step up, but there is still a strange shadow cast by him.

Talking Ass wrote:Said in another way, it sounds like 'acquiescence'...or simply accepting what is as what is.

Well yes, it is a type of acquiescence in that one is accepting the truth for what it is. But it isn't a passive act. Attaining that kind of acceptance requires a courageous act of heroism, as it involves completely breaking away from the human race and cultivating a true independence of mind.

Sometimes, I don't think you have any idea of just how awesome the act of opening one's mind to the Infinite is. If you did, it would scare the bejeebus out of you.

Your definition of enlightenment seems your own.

I love the way you flop and change. If I say something that sounds like what someone else has said (e.g. the Buddha), you claim that I am simply a conventional thinker. If I say something different, you claim that I am simply creating something on my own. You have all bases covered.

My impression of enlightenment as you define it is that it is a mental act, an act of decision, as if you have logically located enlightenment and then decided to have it. I pick up this impression strongly in those who follow you. I have had experiences, and at least in some.sense live in the shadow of the effect of those experiences, of 'enlightenment', and it does not at all come with the sense as you describe it. I.am accustomed to the descriptions of enlightenment.from sorts like Ramakrishna, which are.dramatically.different from.your own (so much so there is hardly a.point of comparison). But I begin to wonder if much of the Indian mysticism is exaggerated, spectacular .and somehow dishonest. The 'leaving the world' stuff doesn't ring true, for me. So, I am stuck with a rather slow, plodding.process of defining values and reasons.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The main problem I have with the posts is that I'm not a fan of Kevin's work and style. Don't care that much for the Poison book and don't get much out of his posts generally with some notable exceptions.

I think a lot of what you get out of reading something depends on how wise you are yourself. An average person won't get anything out of reading any of the Buddhist writings, but he may get a lot out of reading Oscar Wilde's works. A wiser person can learn a lot from Nietzsche or Weininger's books. In a sense one can only learn what one already knows.

Poison for the heart is meant for advanced readers, i.e, people who are willing to take their thoughts to their conclusions. Wisdom of the infinite is probably more suitable for beginners.

Talking Ass wrote:My impression of enlightenment as you define it is that it is a mental act, an act of decision, as if you have logically located enlightenment and then decided to have it.

That's exactly right. One has to first locate where enlightenment is and then make the conscious decision to dive into it. Without that decision, it will never be found.

Its location is not spacial in nature, though. It's existential. It is located at the end of delusion.

Or to put it another way: When the mind is deluded, enlightenment has a location. When the mind is undeluded, enlightenment cannot be found anywhere.

I have had experiences, and at least in some.sense live in the shadow of the effect of those experiences, of 'enlightenment', and it does not at all come with the sense as you describe it.

That is probably because you are mistaking certain kinds of altered states or mystical experiences for enlightenment - which is a common mistake. Enlightenment is as far away from the mystical experience as it is from everything else.

I.am accustomed to the descriptions of enlightenment.from sorts like Ramakrishna, which are.dramatically.different from.your own (so much so there is hardly a.point of comparison).

Ramakrishna definitely understood the Infinite, but he was corrupt enough to hold up samadhis and other altered states as being enlightenment experiences. He knew his followers wouldn't be able to understand the Infinite and so he gave them what they wanted - conventional mystical trinkets familiar to the Hindu mindset.

But I begin to wonder if much of the Indian mysticism is exaggerated, spectacular .and somehow dishonest.

Just about all of it is.

The 'leaving the world' stuff doesn't ring true, for me. So, I am stuck with a rather slow, plodding.process of defining values and reasons.

Leaving the world doesn't ring true for me either. How can one ever leave the totality?

DQ wrote:Well yes, it is a type of acquiescence in that one is accepting the truth for what it is. But it isn't a passive act. Attaining that kind of acceptance requires a courageous act of heroism, as it involves completely breaking away from the human race and cultivating a true independence of mind.

This is something you have said more than once. To me it rings true, and it makes me interested in what else you may have to say. But I have found many of those other things conflict in principle with this very simple, but useful, observation.

If there is no such thing as free will, if everything one does is caused by the outside, then the above observation is rendered void. For who can be "courageous" or "heroic" if the self is an illusion, and hanging onto the notion of one is a delusion?

Everything may be connected, but the A in A=A is not everything. If it were, the meaning would suddenly vanish. A=A implies and not something else. Which of course acknowledges that there is something else.

Well let A equal oneself; in other words, there may be reasons aplenty for one's actions, but if they are entirely caused by ~A, then there can be no heroism or courage.

David Quinn wrote:Ramakrishna definitely understood the Infinite, but he was corrupt enough to hold up samadhis and other altered states as being enlightenment experiences. He knew his followers wouldn't be able to understand the Infinite and so he gave them what they wanted - conventional mystical trinkets familiar to the Hindu mindset.

-

Would you say the same thing about Shree Bhagwan Rajneesh aka Osho, George Gurdjieff, Ramana Maharshi or even The Buddha?

When we look at the list of those said to be 'enlightened', when we consider the multitudes who have wasted their lives under the influence of vanity, or enlightenment delusion, or moral confusion, I am always inclined to turn back to the 'enlightenment' of desire to be honest, grounded, and still searching for ways to act correctly in the world. There seems to me no shortcut, no trick. And it is pretty obvious, or should be, that we have our own enlightenment ideal in the West, and it is married, inevitably, to both 'the world' and to ethics and morality. Better (perhaps?) to stay within pain and confusion and uncertainty than to trick oneself with false enlightenments.

jupiviv wrote:I think a lot of what you get out of reading something depends on how wise you are yourself. An average person won't get anything out of reading any of the Buddhist writings, but he may get a lot out of reading Oscar Wilde's works. A wiser person can learn a lot from Nietzsche or Weininger's books. In a sense one can only learn what one already knows.

Poison for the heart is meant for advanced readers, i.e, people who are willing to take their thoughts to their conclusions. Wisdom of the infinite is probably more suitable for beginners.

I'm glad you got so much out of those! Indeed it probably depends on the amount of understanding. When are you going to publish your book? Or are you going to remain forever "advanced reader"?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:When are you going to publish your book? Or are you going to remain forever "advanced reader"?

I don't have a knack for writing at the length of what would be considered to be a book. I sometimes write down thoughts in a diary as aphorisms. I may decide to publish them some day, if they get bulky enough.

DQ wrote:Well yes, it is a type of acquiescence in that one is accepting the truth for what it is. But it isn't a passive act. Attaining that kind of acceptance requires a courageous act of heroism, as it involves completely breaking away from the human race and cultivating a true independence of mind.

This is something you have said more than once. To me it rings true, and it makes me interested in what else you may have to say. But I have found many of those other things conflict in principle with this very simple, but useful, observation.

If there is no such thing as free will, if everything one does is caused by the outside, then the above observation is rendered void. For who can be "courageous" or "heroic" if the self is an illusion, and hanging onto the notion of one is a delusion?

Everything may be connected, but the A in A=A is not everything. If it were, the meaning would suddenly vanish. A=A implies and not something else. Which of course acknowledges that there is something else.

Well let A equal oneself; in other words, there may be reasons aplenty for one's actions, but if they are entirely caused by ~A, then there can be no heroism or courage.

This is like saying that since all things are caused, there is no difference betweeen a healthy tree and a diseased tree.

Yes, in one sense, there is no difference, since both trees are equally determined by Nature's causal processes. Yet this doesn't change the reality that only one of the trees will produce healthy fruit.

Likewise, courage and cowardice are both equally caused, yet each of them can trigger very different outcomes.

David Quinn wrote:Ramakrishna definitely understood the Infinite, but he was corrupt enough to hold up samadhis and other altered states as being enlightenment experiences. He knew his followers wouldn't be able to understand the Infinite and so he gave them what they wanted - conventional mystical trinkets familiar to the Hindu mindset.

Would you say the same thing about Shree Bhagwan Rajneesh aka Osho, George Gurdjieff, Ramana Maharshi or even The Buddha?

I would, yes. Whenever a guru gathers a large following, you can be sure that he is corrupt to some extent. Trinkets are being handed out to titillate the egos of his followers. The more skilled gurus, of course, mix truths in with the trinkets, which make them especially dangerous.

Here is a throwaway piece that I wrote about the Buddha a few years ago:

It may well be that the religion of Buddhism is little more than a giant lie concocted by Gautama Siddharta (the original Buddha) for the purpose of preserving his highest wisdom. In other words, he created a religious community in which everyone was required to wear the same robes and the same haircut, and flooded it with reams of simplistic dogma and superficial rules, knowing that it would attract sheep-like individuals in droves. Although sheep-like individuals have no potential for wisdom, they tend to be very good at mundane things like building temples, copying texts, organizing lectures, administrating communities and so on. The Buddha saw, perhaps, that they could be harnessed to create a vehicle in which his deepest truths would be preserved for the sake of those few advanced thinkers in future generations.

The process is a bit like a bird eating a tasty seed and flying away to defecate the seed in another spot. What attracts the bird is the taste and smell of the seed, while the most valuble part of the seed is the genetic material contained within it, which the bird knows nothing about. Similarly, the rituals, rules and dogmas of the Buddhist religion are the "tasty" elements which attact multitudes of witless monks, and it is through their mundane, sheep-like activity that they unwittingly preserve the genuine wisdom which exists deep within Buddhism. In other words, the Buddha created a lie for the sake of truth.

I don't know if this is what really happened, but I cannot think of any other (wise) reason why Buddhism was created in the first place. There is no other way that its existence can be justified from the point of view of wisdom. Unless, of course, the Buddha was really a Rashneesh-type charlatan. (But if that were the case, then the presence of the genuine wisdom which does exist in certain parts of Buddhism would still need to be explained.)

Talking Ass wrote: Better (perhaps?) to stay within pain and confusion and uncertainty than to trick oneself with false enlightenments.

I couldn't agree more. If a person cannot find true enlightenment, then it is far better that he continues to suffer confusion and uncertainty than content himself with the bliss of a false enlightenment. In doing this, he is still giving himself a chance.

Of course, nowadays more and more people are merely contenting themselves with the bliss of confusion and uncertainty....

Daivd, do you think people that have gurus are weak ? How about Nagajuna ? Every Buddhist Master you can think of has had a teacher :

at age seven, his parents sent Nagarjuna to Nalanda Monastic University in North India, where he met the Buddhist master Saraha. Saraha told him that if he became a renunciate and recited the Amitabha mantra, he would lead a long life. Nagarjuna did so and then joined the monastery, receiving the name “Shrimanta.”

At Nalanda, Nagarjuna studied sutra and tantra with Ratnamati – an emanation of Manjushri – and, with Saraha, especially The Guhyasamaja Tantra (dPal gsang-ba ‘dus-pa’i rgyud). In addition, he learned alchemy from a brahmin, and gained the ability to transmute iron into gold. Using this ability, he was able to feed the Nalanda monks during famine. Eventually, Nagarjuna became the abbot of Nalanda. There, he expelled eight thousand monks who were not keeping the vinaya monastic rules of discipline properly. He also defeated five hundred non-Buddhists in debate.

Not always. If a guru or a mentor can help you stand on your own two feet, then that's a good thing. Problems only arise when the student doesn't want to stand on his own and prefers instead to remain subservient to and dependent on his guru. It then becomes little different from a crutch or a drug-addiction.

David Quinn wrote:It seems paradoxical, but it isn't really. Enlightenment itself is one of the delusions that needs to be abandoned. It is in fact the very last delusion to be abandoned.

If it's a delusion then why abandon it, since the state of being free of delusions is enlightenment which is itself a delusion? I suppose you could say that delusions are non-existent to begin with(like a square circle), and therefore also the process of abandoning them.

How about people that think they don't need a teacher, in essence they are too arrogant to be subservient to anyone . It's much easier to be your own boss. A challenge to have your ego busted by someone else.

David Quinn wrote: It may well be that the religion of Buddhism is little more than a giant lie concocted by Gautama Siddharta (the original Buddha) for the purpose of preserving his highest wisdom. In other words, he created a religious community in which everyone was required to wear the same robes and the same haircut, and flooded it with reams of simplistic dogma and superficial rules, knowing that it would attract sheep-like individuals in droves. Although sheep-like individuals have no potential for wisdom, they tend to be very good at mundane things like building temples, copying texts, organizing lectures, administrating communities and so on. The Buddha saw, perhaps, that they could be harnessed to create a vehicle in which his deepest truths would be preserved for the sake of those few advanced thinkers in future generations.

The process is a bit like a bird eating a tasty seed and flying away to defecate the seed in another spot. What attracts the bird is the taste and smell of the seed, while the most valuble part of the seed is the genetic material contained within it, which the bird knows nothing about. Similarly, the rituals, rules and dogmas of the Buddhist religion are the "tasty" elements which attact multitudes of witless monks, and it is through their mundane, sheep-like activity that they unwittingly preserve the genuine wisdom which exists deep within Buddhism. In other words, the Buddha created a lie for the sake of truth.

I don't know if this is what really happened, but I cannot think of any other (wise) reason why Buddhism was created in the first place. There is no other way that its existence can be justified from the point of view of wisdom. Unless, of course, the Buddha was really a Rashneesh-type charlatan. (But if that were the case, then the presence of the genuine wisdom which does exist in certain parts of Buddhism would still need to be explained.)

A conspiracy theory about Buddhism - that's a new one!

Firstly, as I said, this is a conspiracy theory. Just because 9/11 helped the US government to do what they wanted(wage war on Iraq), it doesn't mean they were behind it. Similarly, just because mainstream Buddhism is crass, it doesn't mean the Buddha intended it to be that way. I think the Buddha foresaw well enough that his teachings would be distorted by deluded people, which is why he reportedly wrote about the ultimate extinction of the dharma. He probably didn't think challenging the superficial customs of his time was very important.

Secondly, this strategy would have resulted in his teachings getting even more distorted. People with genuine potential would have been regarded as the same as the blind followers and academic types, in order to keep up the lie. Because of this, the teachings would have been distorted right after his death, since most of the people passing them on wouldn't understand them.

Buddhism has created more enlightened people than any other religion or philosophical movement in the world - that couldn't have been achieved if it had been intentionally filled with morons from the get go.